Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

<quoted text>Right. Based on the number of people named "Steve". OK.Well, in my own experience. I know many medical doctors, and I know a biologist, numerous physicists and meteorologists (one of which, the formal Director of the National Hurricane Center who convinced me of a young earth creation), and I am a member of several creation science research organizations, my family, my friends, and I have read dozens of books with titles like, "Why 50 scientists reject evolution, etc."; in my experience, it seems like the real number is closer to 50% and dropping fast.And also in my experience, the ones who say they believe in evolution are never science-oriented, they are almost certainly atheists, liberal activists, or gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), or some anti-social aspect, OR JUST UNINFORMED, and part of the "low-information" sheeple.

Didn't you already establish that "you can't just pull numbers out of your rear end."? Follow your own rules, Urb.

<quoted text>Right. Based on the number of people named "Steve". OK.Well, in my own experience. I know many medical doctors, and I know a biologist, numerous physicists and meteorologists (one of which, the formal Director of the National Hurricane Center who convinced me of a young earth creation), and I am a member of several creation science research organizations, my family, my friends, and I have read dozens of books with titles like, "Why 50 scientists reject evolution, etc."; in my experience, it seems like the real number is closer to 50% and dropping fast.And also in my experience, the ones who say they believe in evolution are never science-oriented, they are almost certainly atheists, liberal activists, or gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), or some anti-social aspect, OR JUST UNINFORMED, and part of the "low-information" sheeple.

This is called sample bias. And projection at the end, of course.

And I would not expect a low level applied scientist like a meteorologist to understand genetics and biology. Modern doctors (graduating in the last 5-10 years) should know better. Evolution nor evolutionary medicine is not required in many MD programs, even today.

Still, 50 scientists reject evolution... wow. I can find 50 scientists that believe in bigfoot, or voodoo. I bet I can find thousands that believe in UFOs.

I know there are hundreds of thousands of scientists that are Islamic. Probably more that are Hindu or Buddhist.

Still, NO scientist should EVER BELIEVE in evolution. Accept evolution, sure. But science must always be skeptical.

Take a look around you. You accuse anyone who does not agree with you of being uninformed, but the reality is that nearly all of "us" are more educated in science (and seem to understand it better) than you do.

"And also in my experience, the ones who say they believe in evolution are never science-oriented, they are almost certainly atheists, liberal activists, or gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), or some anti-social aspect, OR JUST UNINFORMED, and part of the "low-information" sheeple."

low educationlow IQevangelical creationist

Those are all words that go together.

And nice of you to accuse liberal activists and gays as being uninformed. Liberals have NPR, Neocons have Rush Limbaugh. Enough said.

<quoted text>The point is, we don't know the percentage and your claims are obviously bogus. I was just giving my own personal experience. Maybe you should take a survey at the next "Darwin Day" event for a more unbiased count. Coming up soon! LOL!:~D

Your biased personal experiences vs. a research study.

This is just too easy.

Why would ANYONE show up for a "Darwin Day" event? I wouldn't and I have been arguing science over pseudoscience for years.

A change in the internal chemistry of the amoeba as a result of running low on food could stimulate the extension of pseudopodia etc that you call "looking for food"...the mechanism would therefore be no more conscious than a traffic signal changing when your car arrived at the under-tarmac sensor. Are the traffic lights watching us? "woooo woooo" !!I think this level of chemical automaticity applies all the way up to critters with advanced cerebral cortexes - the kind that enable them to visualise alternatives and choose among them, i.e. a manipulable internal model of the world and a sort of what-if capacity. I think that would only apply to some birds and mammals.

The key word is "could". It "could" stimulate "pseudopodia". But some of the amoeba have one trait (survival) while others have the opposite trait (self sacrifice). In higher animals it wouldn't be as remarkable but this is unexplainable. They share the same immediate environment, so how could opposite genetic traits be concurrently 'selected for' in the necessary proportions?

Who said that consciousness is 'just reaction to stimuli'? I would put consciousness at a much different level than simply 'reaction to stimuli'.

I thought we agreed that your idea of consciousness was basically 'sensing, interpreting and responding to stimuli'? That's the only way you could get away with defining it as originating from a molecular mechanism. And my response to that was that you do not have enough evidence to define it as such. So, what is your idea of consciousness then?

<quoted text>Yeah. Least we forget, the fight is against the fundies, not against real Christians. I am the later and urbane cow-plop is the former.

Agreed, am always at pains to point out I have no issue with faith (of whatever kind) at all , it's the ludicrous distortions , logic fails and hypocrisy from the likes of fundies like UC that are laughable.

And it's the whackjobs that equate evolution to atheism - I would leave religion out of it as isn't really helpful (scientifically)

Did you not state that quantum conscious is possible until proven otherwise? Are you backing away from that now?[/QUOTE/]Yes I stated that and there's nothing wrong with that; why would I deny it? It is as possible as molecular complexity until you show evidence it's not. Difference is I am not bidding science to define it as such like you are doing; what you are doing is premature and biased and unjustified. You guys are opposite but equally guilty of an agenda as the creationists. No middle road around here. No one can break through that wall[QUOTE]Us? You mean to *you*. I haven't noticed anyone jumping on your quantum consciousness bandwagon.

I'm not trying to get people to jump on mine like you are yours. I'm just saying that you are not the only ride in town. All I am repetitively saying is that you haven't the evidence to claim you know what consciousness is or even where or how it originates. But that doesn't stop you.

Did you not state that quantum conscious is possible until proven otherwise? Are you backing away from that now?

Yes I stated that and there's nothing wrong with that; why would I deny it? It is as possible as molecular complexity until you show evidence it's not. Difference is I am not bidding science to define it as such like you are doing; what you are doing is premature and biased and unjustified. You guys are opposite but equally guilty of an agenda as the creationists. No middle road around here. No one can break through that wall

I'm not trying to get people to jump on mine like you are yours. I'm just saying that you are not the only ride in town. All I am repetitively saying is that you haven't the evidence to claim you know what consciousness is or even where or how it originates. But that doesn't stop you.

When something is not in existence, no matter its definition, and then it ‘comes into existence’, then “coming into existence” is the finish line. I know you’re not that dense just that you have to protect your silly agenda. The only time that doesn’t apply is when we have something eternal, like energy.

Yet you have not defined this "finish line". Where is this exact line between non-consciousness and consciousness?

That’s the rub. No one knows, yet you guys claim that we don’t have to know it in order to define consciousness as emergent of the matter it is associated with. That’s basically lying.

We have what I consider to be direct evidence: the ways that consciousness changes when the brain is changed, etc. I am curious what *you* would consider to be 'direct evidence'. And, unlike fairies, we know molecules exist.

And I know you are not that dense as you act either. I have repeated myself many times yet you feign not understanding. You change the brain. How do you know you are directly changing consciousness rather than its conduit? You don’t. Consider all you want, it’s not enough yet. Unlike ferries we know the quantum world exists. Unlike ferries we know the molecular world exists but have no clue as to whether consciousness emerges from it. We will know “direct evidence’ when we see it; we haven’t any yet so how should anyone know what it looks like? Silly question

First, we *do* know quite a lot about the quantum world and molecules. We have some issues at the level of fundamental particles, but even that has fit very nicely into the standard model. We know how these things act, how the interact, what their properties are and often we know these things in great detail and precision. They are certainly NOT black-boxes.

Everything is ultimately a black box because there is no absolute knowledge, no absolute reference points in our apparent reality to work from. All we have are labels that we put on these most fundamental black boxes we call quanta. You can’t argue with that.

No, molecules are not conscious. A single neuron is not conscious. There simply isn't the information processing ability in either that is required for consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of large collections of highly connected signaling agents. At this time, the only agents we know of that are capable of the type and degree of connectivity are neurons.

But you don’t know that; you cannot assume it to be true. Yet again I have to repeat that until we identify what consciousness is and how it works and originates, we cannot assume that there is not a fundamental aspect of it that is contained in every molecule or even every quanta of energy.

What are you wanting? What would evidence for consciousness in a rock even look like? Or an atom? Simply saying 'we can't know' is a cop-out. We can and do know: these things do not have consciousness. They interact, they exert forces, they respond to forces, they even change characteristics. But this is not consciousness. At least, it isn't consciousness in the sense I think of consciousness.

Look, obviously a rock is nothing like a human. But how do we know that consciousness doesn’t exist separately from the conduit (lifeform) using the neural network only as a conduit rather than originating from it? We don’t. So if every quanta of energy has an element of consciousness, that when in conjunction with a neural network can exhibit these sentient properties, then a rock, although unable to exhibit ant sentient properties, would still possess that element of consciousness. All I am saying is you need to show evidence, not mere association. What you refer to as consciousness could just be ‘the result of consciousness working with a neural network’ rather than being emergent of it.

Altering the ability of a lifeform to show signs of consciousness is very different from altering consciousness itself, if they are two separate things.

I don't insist it is made by molecules. If anything it is made from collections of neurons and the particular molecules are only relevant because they stimulate the neurons in particular ways. That becomes important on the practical level of medicine.

When I say “molecules” I am referring to collections of neurons; it’s just easier to say molecules; after all collections of neurons are molecules. You’re still insisting you know the origin of consciousness when no one knows.

polymath257 wrote:

What makes you think they are 'aware of themselves existing'? They certainly signal and respond to signals, but that isn't awareness; it is only responsiveness.

No one saying they have to be. They could be. And if they are then that could be a game changer. There are no game changers yet even though you guys want us to believe there are

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.